Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Earlie who wrote (47129)	2/15/1999 10:20:00 AM
From: gbh	Respond to of 132070

Earlie, not sure how I can be "dead wrong", which would imply you are "dead right", when in fact, the only way this could be possible is if a company actually ever whispered in your ear. Yours is an "opinion" just like mine. "downward revisions" occur in the last few weeks before the numbers come out, then check as to whether there was a public comment made. I've done this for many moons. I agree with you. But you state yourself, "few weeks before". My point exactly. Two days before? The company would have certainly known revs would be shy by the middle of Jan. And the stock has been inflated well before then. If they played the game brilliantly, the company's numbers will slightly exceed Nile's figure, and there will be a small sigh of relief. Niles won't suffer,....after all, he was both right (calling it down) and close (a bit too low). One has to be in tune with Wall Street's superb understanding of human psychology. This was Dave Kansas' assertion, to the letter. I'm admittedly not "in tune with Wall Street" re: psychology, but perhaps you and he are a little too in tune with Oliver Stone <g>. When a company's stock is at these levels, any indication that revs won't be as expected can be devastating. Let's cut to the chase here. This quarter's rev/eps/receivables/etc. mean very little (as usual). Your assertion of "secret midnight" phone calls to gently manipulate the stock, would seem to imply that the CC will be extremely positive with regards to future rev and eps growth. If not, what's the point of this clandestine activity? If the future ain't bright, the gentle landing theory would seem to be even less plausible. Now there I go, playing amateur psychologist again <g>. Gary

To: Earlie who wrote (47129)	2/15/1999 10:39:00 AM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

U.S. govt. ponders remedies against Microsoft...But if the company were to lose at the trial level, sources familiar with the government's thinking say there are four possible alternatives. Two would make structural changes to the company and the other approaches would be more regulatory....The two structural solutions are: -- Break the company into several identical ''Baby Bills,'' each of which would get complete copies of all of Microsoft's intellectual property. This approach has been endorsed by former Judge Robert Bork, who advocates breaking the company into three pieces. -- Split the company into two very different parts: One that builds the Windows operating system and another that builds applications, such as Microsoft Office. But there are no clear boundaries between the operating system and applications, which could mean further wrangling. In fact, Microsoft's decision to integrate a Web browser into its operating system is in contention in the trial -- with the company saying it is a part of the operating system, while the government says it is an application. The two more regulatory solutions are: -- Require licensing of the secret Microsoft ''source code'' to competitors. However, those familiar with such an approach say that the solution was less than fully successful when the Federal Trade Commission forced the Xerox Corp (NYSE:XRX - news). to license its copier patents in 1975. The government might find itself in endless tussles with the company over the costs and conditions for licensing. Microsoft might also make swift changes to its code before it licensed its products. -- The weakest approach would be for the judge to issue orders prohibiting the company from continuing the business practices which the government contends are illegal. The government reached an agreement with Microsoft in 1995 to prohibit certain business practices, only to go into court in 1997 and allege that Microsoft had violated the agreement. biz.yahoo.com